Top pay-TV operators lost 665,000 subscribers in Q2 2016.

Share this story

The second quarter of each year is generally bad for pay-TV companies, but subscriber losses this year reached new heights.

The 11 biggest pay-TV providers in the US, representing 95 percent of the market, lost 665,000 net video subscribers in Q2 2016, Leichtman Research Group reported today. This is more than double the losses of two years ago. Previously, the companies lost 545,000 subscribers in Q2 2015, 300,000 in Q2 2014, and 350,000 in Q2 2013.

This year's Q2 net losses "surpass[ed] the previous quarterly low set in last year's second quarter," said the research group president, Bruce Leichtman. The group's data goes back to 2001.

The only major TV service to add subscribers was DirecTV, which gained 342,000 in the quarter to boost its total to 20.5 million. But DirecTV is owned by AT&T, whose U-verse TV service lost 391,000 subscribers, resulting in a net loss for AT&T's pay-TV services. Comcast's net loss of 4,000 customers was its best second quarter result in more than 10 years, partly because of its new $15-per-month "cable streaming service." Charter, the new owner of Time Warner Cable, lost 143,000 subscribers to bring the newly merged company's total down to 17.3 million. Dish lost 281,000 and now has 13.6 million subscribers.

Losses generally pop up in the second quarter as college students and "snow birds" move. The first quarter is usually much stronger, but it wasn't that great this year. The biggest providers gained 10,000 video subscribers in Q1 2016, down from gains of 170,000 subscribers in Q1 2015.

With bigger losses and smaller gains, the yearly numbers are dropping. "Over the past year, the top pay-TV providers (including Dish's [Internet-based] Sling TV) lost about 705,000 subscribers—compared to a loss of about 380,000 over the prior year," Leichtman said in today's press release.

It's still a big business on the whole, with the country's largest operators accounting for 93.75 million TV subscribers. While some customers drop traditional cable TV packages because they use Netflix or other streaming services, those customers still need a good Internet connection. Accordingly, the 17 largest ISPs in the US, representing 95 percent of the market, gained nearly 1.1 million Internet subscribers in Q1 2016, bringing the total to 91.5 million, Leichtman reported in May.

100 Reader Comments

I was thinking a while back when I cut out cable that they were offering cable and internet bundles for less than what basic internet was running, why that was. It is mostly because they get more money from advertisements based on how much market they have. It is beneficial to them to have as many cable subscribers as possible so they bundle these deals to make it more attractive.

So why do they not just sell a basic cable package for $10 a month (basic meaning ESPN and others like Comedy Central and Syfy)? That would easily draw in more subscribers.

As it was, for $15 a month all I got from TW was OTA channels and SD ESPN and odd ball channels with nothing on.

Either way, maybe in 10 years the cable companies will realize that all their 'innovation' is just driving people away.

Two of the three sports I watch can be had with internet only subscriptions so it's easier for me, but it seems like even people who watch the standard sports packages are starting to ditch cable, and sports have been the single reason to keep cable for a few years now.

I was thinking a while back when I cut out cable that they were offering cable and internet bundles for less than what basic internet was running, why that was. It is mostly because they get more money from advertisements based on how much market they have. It is beneficial to them to have as many cable subscribers as possible so they bundle these deals to make it more attractive.

So why do they not just sell a basic cable package for $10 a month (basic meaning ESPN and others like Comedy Central and Syfy)? That would easily draw in more subscribers.

As it was, for $15 a month all I got from TW was OTA channels and SD ESPN and odd ball channels with nothing on.

Either way, maybe in 10 years the cable companies will realize that all their 'innovation' is just driving people away.

A package like that could never include ESPN. If you don't know, the cable companies pay the channel owners an agreed-upon amount per subscriber to include them in the package. ESPN is the most expensive by an order of magnitude, at something like $8 per subscriber per month last I heard.

I was thinking a while back when I cut out cable that they were offering cable and internet bundles for less than what basic internet was running, why that was. It is mostly because they get more money from advertisements based on how much market they have. It is beneficial to them to have as many cable subscribers as possible so they bundle these deals to make it more attractive.

So why do they not just sell a basic cable package for $10 a month (basic meaning ESPN and others like Comedy Central and Syfy)? That would easily draw in more subscribers.

As it was, for $15 a month all I got from TW was OTA channels and SD ESPN and odd ball channels with nothing on.

Either way, maybe in 10 years the cable companies will realize that all their 'innovation' is just driving people away.

ESPN would be impossible, I've heard they charge cable companies a lot; in other words, it's cable channels that raise their prices on the companies, and as a result a domino effect drives consumers away. They need to figure out something else.

Two of the three sports I watch can be had with internet only subscriptions so it's easier for me, but it seems like even people who watch the standard sports packages are starting to ditch cable, and sports have been the single reason to keep cable for a few years now.

How do you figure? No Dodgers baseball for me in LA w/o TWC. Does NBC Sports have a streaming service so I can watch all the futbol, F1, Olympics and NHL I want without my cable subscription? Regional sports networks don't have streaming only, so goodbye my regional Fox station that carries the LA Kings. Maybe I'm an over-consuming freak, but I have no option for sports besides cable, or spending a LOT of time at my local sports bar.

64% of the losses are with two companies. Out of total losses of 665k, DISH lost 281k and Charter lost 143k. (AT&T lost 391k U-verse customers but gained 342k DirecTV customers, so that's a small net loss.)

These figures appear to indicate issues with individual companies rather than general dissatisfaction with the industry.

Once you can convince everyone in the household how much money you can save by cord cutting, it's eaay. I hacked together an antenna(old coaxial and a drain guard, oh the irony), got us HBO GO and Netflix. Bye bye cable.

Comcast may have counted me as a subscriber as I did their PC only thing for $17 a month for 2 months. I have internet from them, but got the PC thing to watch HBO for a couple of months to watch Silicon Valley and Game of Thrones. The package also get locals (which are too far away to get with out outdoor antenna), CSPAN, and a bunch of shopping and religious crap. All I watched after HBO, was news, so no reason to keep. Been without cable for about 5 years now.

Leichtman didn't name any causes for the decline, but we assume that availability of video on the Internet, big price increases, and poorly rated customer service may contribute to pay-TV losses.

I'll note, too, that the industry as a whole is operating at or near the saturation point; the only "growth" that can occur at this point must come at the expense of another player. Subscriptions are a zero-sum game, and unless cable companies start buying their own nations they aren't going to see any additional real growth.

64% of the losses are with two companies. Out of total losses of 665k, DISH lost 281k and Charter lost 143k. (AT&T lost 391k U-verse customers but gained 342k DirecTV customers, so that's a small net loss.)

These figures appear to indicate issues with individual companies rather than general dissatisfaction with the industry.

I may have canceled my TV service from Comcast, but my internet bill stayed the same price. The only reason I'm even saving money is because I bought my own cable modem and stopped paying $20/mo in rental fees.

I finally cut the cord this year. It feels great to have that extra money in my wallet and still have plenty of entertainment options.

DirecTV sends me "special offers" for $19.99/month to come back, which only reinforces my happiness, because that $19.99 really means $60/month after taxes, fees, hardware rentals, etc, then balloons to $80 in year 2 and $100 after that. So happy to be free from the manipulation!

I finally cut the cord this year. It feels great to have that extra money in my wallet and still have plenty of entertainment options.

DirecTV sends me "special offers" for $19.99/month to come back, which only reinforces my happiness, because that $19.99 really means $60/month after taxes, fees, hardware rentals, etc, then balloons to $80 in year 2 and $100 after that. So happy to be free from the manipulation!

I may have canceled my TV service from Comcast, but my internet bill stayed the same price. The only reason I'm even saving money is because I bought my own cable modem and stopped paying $20/mo in rental fees.

This is highly dependent on your locale and what you're switching away from and to. I am currently experiencing real savings from "cutting the cord" and keeping Comcast for Internet.

I was forced into a higher Tier of programming services in order to get an International channel; that and Internet, even with the Xfinity bundle, cost me a minimum of $179/mo with various random charges sometimes running it up into $200/mo, averaging around $190/mo. Those are real numbers within a promo period, not Comcast advertisements.

Now I pay Comcast 69.95/mo for performance Internet, 12.99 each for Netflix and the International service on settop boxes, and SlingTV $30/mo. So, I have real savings. I have given up Fox News and all NBC Olympics programming, but I've picked up a bunch of other stuff. SlingTV will probably go, in favor of Hulu or something else, and then I'll probably save even more. My family loves binge-watching their favorite shows.

I'm one of those. I could simply no longer justify paying over $80 per month to watch the two or three shows I liked to watch.

When I first got cable (from satellite) about 9 years ago, it was $50 per month. Over the last nine years my price went up by >$30 per month, in addition to the cable carrier consistently cutting channels over the years.

I was thinking a while back when I cut out cable that they were offering cable and internet bundles for less than what basic internet was running, why that was. It is mostly because they get more money from advertisements based on how much market they have. It is beneficial to them to have as many cable subscribers as possible so they bundle these deals to make it more attractive.

So why do they not just sell a basic cable package for $10 a month (basic meaning ESPN and others like Comedy Central and Syfy)? That would easily draw in more subscribers.

As it was, for $15 a month all I got from TW was OTA channels and SD ESPN and odd ball channels with nothing on.

Either way, maybe in 10 years the cable companies will realize that all their 'innovation' is just driving people away.

It was that way for me a few years ago. Now since they won't give me "new customer" rates and that their rates in general have gone up, they'd have to teaser me a heck of a lot. My last bill was $157 and some change all up including taxes for a FIOS triple play package with 75Mbps internet in there.

When I checked, their current price I think is either $79 or $89 a month for just internet (plus I assume another $5-15 of misc. taxes). A lot of that is for taxes and for things like paying $18 a month for renting a DVR...because of course I can't buy one or use my own device.

Even if they threw me a nice teaser rate I am sick of it, December when my contract runs out, you can color me among those who are cutting the cord. The $50-70 a month in savings pays for adding Hulu prime to my Netflix and Amazon prime as well as a LOT of episodes a month from iTunes and still have enough left over for a few coffees at Starbucks.

Even this doesn't reflect the real hard truth.Comcast offers their basic cable package (Free channels + HBO) + Internet at the same cost or cheaper than their internet only package.That's why I (and several people I know) opted for their cable+internet (double play) package.But for all practical purposes we are internet only customers (no TV/cable box connected). We do use HBO on hbo.com though.We get counted as cable subscribers but that's a farce.If accounts like mine get marked as internet only, the real numbers of cord cutters will come to light.

This is similar to getting auto+renters insurance for cheaper than auto insurance only. Can't understand how that makes any financial sense for the company offering it other than PR wise to say we have X customers (instead of X-1).

And stop doubling my bill after two years is up. I have both Comcast and FIOS both in the basement now. Tick tock, tick tock. Every two years I switch to get the bill back down. Doing this is worth in excess of $100 month -- $1,200 a year!

Let's screw the existing customers out of more cash. That will fix the problem!

Well when that's been their one and only play for decades it's a little hard to break out of that pattern. Used to be, almost everyone was their customer because people had no choice if they wanted TV besides the few OTA channels. 'Let's see how we can screw them out of as much money as we can' strategy works when the customers got nowhere else to go.

Now they need to compete. Oooooooh? Let's screw the remaining customers out of more money!

You joke but they just may change how and what they bill in order to jack up the average bills, rather than to try to win customers back.

I cut the cable back in the mid 2000's having decided that the amount I was paying for the 5 channels I bothered to ever watch at all was far more than I was willing to spend.

I was a cable cutter years before "cable cutting" was a thing. I just didn't see the value in it. I still don't.

With even OTA stuff being digitized (no more analog signals over the cable in my area, at least) the trend of the Internet is pulling away from the old bundled television paradigm into direct delivery. An "ala carte'" approach to delivery directly from the content creators. Cable companies had better get ready for the coming of the GREAT CABLE CUTTER CLIPPERS because as content creators put more of their stuff out there on their own, the cable companies are going to be sitting there with huge bills to send this stuff out and no one bothering to buy into that service.

ISP providers will have to become the dumb pipes they should have been all along. I often wonder how much of their revenue made from the extortionate practice of charging for the AMOUNT of data someone gets (via contrived overages) had more to do with keeping high profits in the face of increasing costs to stream content via cable (like the prices ESPN charges for their junk) than an actual need to throttle the traffic. If that's actually the case, the cable companies would make more friends by simply offering an "all in one" app that lets folks access from their computers/Roku/Smart TV's anything streamed by a content maker rather than doing it themselves with cable boxes.

Unless, of course, their practice of charging rentals on them is a must-have revenue stream to stay in business (which I doubt).

The end times for "cable TV" are nigh. And it can't happen fast enough. If there were computer apps for most of the providers (or the not-yet-made all-in-one that could access/subscribe to any number of content creators in a secure manner without mucking around with web browsers that can access all of the subscribed content rather than on a show-by-show basis), I tend to think that would speed things up a lot.

The 11 biggest pay-TV providers in the US, representing 95 percent of the market, lost 665,000 net video subscribers in Q2 2016, Leichtman Research Group reported today. This is more than double the losses of two years ago. Previously, the companies lost 545,000 subscribers in Q2 2015, 300,000 in Q2 2014, and 350,000 in Q2 2013.

Should that be either "almost double the losses of two years ago", or else "more than double last years loss?"

I bet part of the reason DircTV saw an increase was due to ATT offering up unlimited data to their wireless customers that have DircTV. For people that are outside wired broadband connections, their smartphone becomes their only connection to the Internet. And since DircTV service isn't bound by wires, people that live in the boonies or sticks or even places that only offer DSL or dial-up still, it can end up being a cheaper option to get DircTV and the unlimited data. Who's got $175 for like 30GB of data?!? Legalized extortion.